Berkeley's argument for the existence of God

[FatAndFaithless]

@MK sure man, I'll PM that to you if you'd like.

True F&F but your hand does not register 200 degrees celcius, right? Instead it registers "Ouch! Hot!" There is a specific sensation that heat has... and a specific sensation that cold has... just like the color "blue" has a certain appearance. These are the mind's interpretation of color and temperature. There is no equal sign between the SENSATION of warmth and a thermometer reading. That's what Locke and Hume call a "secondary quality."

Shape and size are different. Shape is a "primary" quality because it is not the result of the interpretive powers of the mind... it is a direct representation of an actual quality of the object.

I'm not sure how that answers my question.  We have explicit, non-subjective definitions of heat, the lack thereof, and the physical effects on reality when heat increases or decreases.  It's not my mind interpreting heat, it's a tool that we've all used a bazillion times specifically to AVOID relying on subjective perception and interpretation.  Same thing with the color blue - it's a specific range of light wavelength.  That wavelength would exist whether or not we could see it - just like I can say "Infrared light exists, even though I cannot perceive it."  Shape and size are defined by angles, lengths, volume, etc - just the same way heat and color are.

But my bigger question again - how is this useful?  How do we verify this if not through using the very sort of data + evidence that Berkeley seems to be disparaging?  

You may as well post your refutations, because I still don't see any way this argument holds any water to begin with.  Or...is it simply the idea of water?